Blog No. 189. A Few Words For Democrats in 2018 and 2020

Blog No. 188 observed that RINOs and other disaffected Republicans should wish for, and give their support to, a Democratic victory in the House of Representatives in November. A few days later, Michael Gerson, writing in the Washington Post made the same point in more colorful language. Gerson, readers may recall, was chief speechwriter for President George W. Bush, and he now argues that “The only way to save the GOP is to defeat it”:

[A Democratic] House will conduct real oversight hearings and expose both Russian influence and administration corruption. Under Republican control, important committees — such as Chairman Devin Nunes’s House Intelligence Committee — have become scraping, sniveling, panting and pathetic tools of the executive branch. Only Democratic control can drain this particular swamp.

Alternatively: If Republicans retain control of the House in November, Trump will (correctly) claim victory and vindication…. He will have proved the electoral value of racial and ethnic stereotyping. He will have demonstrated the effectiveness of circuslike distraction. He will have shown the political power of bold, constant, uncorrected lies. And he will gain many more enablers and imitators.

Perhaps worst of all, a victorious Trump will complete his takeover of the Republican Party (which is already far along). Even murmured dissent will be silenced. The GOP will be fully committed to a 2020 presidential campaign conducted in the spirit of George C. Wallace — a campaign of racial division, of rural/urban division, of religious division, of party division that metastasizes into mutual contempt.

Quite obviously, there are even more compelling reasons to wish for a Trump defeat in 2020 if he has not resigned or been impeached and removed from office before then. The question therefore is how are Democrats to conduct themselves to achieve success in 2018 and 2020? While Democrats are not likely to look to RINOcracy.com for advice, I have some thoughts.

2018

There is an ongoing contest within the Democratic party between centrists and progressives. Democrats, just as Republicans, rely on their base to arouse enthusiasm and support. And as the Republican base tends to be dominated by more extreme conservatives, the Democratic base may be heavily influenced by the most liberal or, in the current argot progressive, voices. In July primaries, Democratic voters demonstrated a strong preference for centrist candidates, while in May and June, they chose progressives. Democratic progressives uniformly support a panoply of far-reaching and costly government programs, as well as demanding the abolition of ICE (Immigration and Customs Enforcement). The leaders of that wing of the Democratic Party have been Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren and more recently they have been joined by a new “superstar,” a self-styled Democratic Socialist, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, who gained instant celebrity by ousting a senior Democrat in a New York City primary.

The programs that progressives advocate have little or no chance of being enacted any time soon and may gain little support among the independents whose votes will be key to the outcome of the election. For example, rather than advocating a costly program of “Medicare for All,” it probably would make more sense to emphasize that a Democratic House may be able to forestall Trump’s efforts to dismantle Obamacare by executive action. (What ever became of second half of “repeal and replace“?)

Democratic centrists have begun to fight back. A July 23 article in New York Magazine described an assembly of Democrats organized by Third Way, a centrist Democratic think tank, “Undaunted Democratic centrists ready to fight Trump and Bernie at the same time.”  The leaders of the movement are seeking to promote the notion of “Opportunity Democrats” and their economic platform “leans heavily on words like “earn” and “opportunity,” and away from demonizing tycoons. The principal focus of the Third Way centrists has been on 2020 and it remains to be seen how centrists and progressives respectively fare this November. RINOs will be more comfortable with the approach of the centrists, and it should be more appealing to Independents. But as the President is wont to say, “We’ll see.”

Perceptions of Donald Trump may be a dominant factor in this November’s election, but it probably will not profit centrist and progressive Democrats to focus much time and energy on Trump’s personal qualities of vulgarity, mendacity and racism. A phrase in the law, res ipsa loquitur, the thing speaks for itself, is probably applicable here: there is not much that can be said about the Trump persona that will not have been obvious to anyone paying even minimal attention to his antics. Those in the Trump base will remain curiously unmoved and unmovable, and for the rest of us it will be old news.

That does not mean that Democratic candidates are not entitled to have a little fun when Trump veers into his parallel universe, as in his recent claim in Wisconsin that Ronald Reagan lost the state, and that before his 2016 win, no GOP presidential candidate had won Wisconsin since Dwight Eisenhower in 1952. Trump had forgotten, or no one had told him, that President Eisenhower won Wisconsin again in 1956, and that Richard Nixon was the winner there in 1960, 1968 and 1972. They were followed by Reagan, who won the state in 1980 and 1984.

Hovering directly over the November election is the investigation by Robert Mueller. According to an August 14 poll conducted for CNN by an independent research company, the public believes by 58%-37% that Russian efforts to influence the 2016 election are “a serious matter that should be fully investigated,” while Republicans disagree by a stunning 77%-17%. There is a subsidiary question, whether Trump should testify or agree to be interviewed by Mueller, that may come to a head between now and the election. The CNN poll indicates broad support (70%-25%) for the proposition that Trump should testify if asked to, with even 39% of Republicans in agreement,

Both Republicans and Democrats have expressed a preference that the Mueller investigation be concluded before the November election, but that seems highly unlikely. Apart from the fact that much work seems yet to be done, Justice Department policy discourages announcements that have a political impact within 60 days preceding an election. Assuming that the investigation continues, it would be reasonable for Democratic candidates to inquire of their Republican opponents:

— Whether they agree that the Mueller investigation is a serious matter that should be pursued to its conclusion and not a “hoax” or witch hunt” as claimed by Trump;

— Whether it would be a grave error for Trump to fire Mueller, Mueller’s supervisor, Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein or Attorney General Jeff Sessions;

— Whether Trump should provide an interview to Mueller or comply with a subpoena if one is issued by the Grand Jury.

Hovering only a bit further away is the question of impeachment. With a few exceptions, such as activist Tom Steyer and Congresswoman Maxine Waters, Democrats have wisely refrained from calling for Trump’s impeachment. Advocacy of impeachment at this stage is premature and could undermine an impeachment effort when and if it becomes warranted. On the other hand, it might be fair to ask Republican candidates if they agree with, or will repudiate, the comments by Devin Nunes, Chairman of the House Intelligence Committee and tireless Trump defender. In remarks recorded at a recent fundraiser, Nunes made it clear that the first priority of a Republican majority in the House would be to protect the President from the consequences of the Mueller investigation:

If Sessions won’t unrecuse and Mueller won’t clear the president, we’re the only ones. Which is really the danger. That’s why I keep, and thank you for saying it by the way, I mean we have to keep all these seats. We have to keep the majority. If we do not keep the majority, all of this goes away…

Contrary to what Nunes may assume, Democratic control of the House should not make impeachment a foregone conclusion. On the contrary, impeachment by the House would come at considerable cost: it would undermine the the authority of the President in the event of an international crisis occurring while a trial in the Senate was underway, and it would further inflame the political passions at home that already divide us. In short, it would be a grave step that should be undertaken only if there is compelling evidence that would make likely a conviction by the Senate.

2020

It is impossible to predict what the political landscape will look like in 2020. Trump will or will not have survived the conclusion of the Mueller investigation, the economy may or may not have continued to thrive, and we may or may not have avoided military confrontations with North Korea, Russia, China or in the Middle East. Nevertheless, names of various potential Democratic candidates have surfaced, and it may not be too early to offer initial reactions to a few of them.

Bernie Sanders. Sanders may deserve to be at the head of the list as the last surviving challenger to Hillary Clinton in 2016. His progressive message will have appeal to a considerable segment of the Democratic base but may be limited for the rest of the electorate. He will also be 79 years old in 2020.

Elizabeth Warren. Warren, like Sanders, may have a message that is too progressive for the general electorate and it is delivered in a manner that many find shrill.

Joe Biden. Biden would bring a somewhat reassuring air of experience, stability and likability. He may, however, be just too familiar at this point and he will be 78 in 2020.

Mitch Landrieu. Landrieu, Mayor of New Orleans, would be a fresh face nationally but, equally, may be said to lack experience in national and international issues. He has navigated racial conflicts in New Orleans with some skill but bears scar tissue for his efforts.

Kirsten Gillibrand. Gillibrand has served in the Senate since 2009 and is almost certain to be reelected in November. During her tenure in the Senate, she has become progressively more progressive and may not be too distant from Sanders and Warren.

Kamala Harris. Harris, a first term Senator for California, appears bright and energetic, but her relatively limited experience suggests that she might be better suited to a Vice-Presidential slot in 2020.

Altogether it is not a line-up that, at first glance, is likely to generate great enthusiasm from RINOs and other occupants of the center right who do not support Trump. There will, however, be more. Media outlets such as the Washington Post, CNN and Kiplinger have identified 15, or as many as 21, possibilities and candidates other than those noted above who may be equally or more deserving of consideration. Whoever emerges, and whatever policies he or she espouses, let us hope for someone with a sense of optimism, breadth of vision and generosity of spirit.